Jew Elected President Of Serbia In CIA-Corrupted Elections
Immediate Purge Of Sixty High Ranking Serbs Follows

6/30/2004 1:01:50 PM
Discuss this story in the forum
LSN Staff

Belgrade, Serbia -- A left-wing Jewish intellectual, Boris Tadic, has been "elected" president of Serbia in a low turn out vote that was heavily influenced by the CIA and Western corruption.
Tadic, who is the son of Klara Mandic, another left-wing Jewish intellectual, counts Predrag Markovic, head of the "Jewish-Serbian society" as his main advisor. He heads the CIA-backed and led Democratic Party, and was elected after forming a coalition with CIA-agent and Western pawn Vojislav Kostunica, who is the current prime minister and who heads the Democratic Party of Serbia. Tadic won 53% of the vote, narrowly beating Tomislav Nikolic, a "right-wing" Serb nationalist who won 45% of the vote.

Tadic's first act in office was to purge 60 ethnically Serbian officials, as a prelude to replacing them with Jewish officials. Once the Jews have solidified control over the government, they are expected to institute a communist-like commissar government and begin the ethnic cleansing of non- Jewish Serb citizens, while establishing a regime of ethnic control that is acceptable to the Jewish-dominated European Union and the Jewish-dominated United States.

The Jewish ascension to power in Serbia is a direct result of the Jewish- led "American" war against the country in 1999, during which the Jewish media in the US fabricated atrocity stories and instigated the world communist against Serbia.

Tadic's ascension to power solidifies Jewish control in the Balkans, where another Jew, Solomon Pasi, sits as foreign minister in Bulgaria and the Jew Yorgos Papanreou leads the Greek opposition, and is expected to be forced by world Jewry into the Prime Minister's slot in the near future.

The sixty officials purged came after the United Nations was embarassed by yet another failure to arrest Serbian national socialist leader Radovan Karadzic, who is accused of war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

Though the Serbs fought an ethnic war against Croats and Albanians, they were not perceptive enough to simultaneously fight the Jews in their nation, who were the real evil doers and the main exploiters of the Serbian people. With Milosevic's removal, Jews continue to rape and pillage Serbia and the Serbian people are distracted with propaganda that blames their plight on "the West".

What a great surprise. After a Jewish-run campaign against Serbia, the Tribe has finally succeeded in turning Serbia into another one of their puppets and client states. The efforts of the neocons and Clinton's court Jews to destroy Serbian nationalism and instill obedience have finally paid off.

This is a surprise. I had not idea there was so much Jewish influence in Serbia. Where is Mladic? I suspect he will have plenty to say about this.

This is a surprise. I had not idea there was so much Jewish influence in Serbia. Where is Mladic? I suspect he will have plenty to say about this.

The mafia in Serbia, though not as prevalent as in Russia, is also heavily Jewish. The mafiosi elements fluorished as never before when Milosevic was removed and replaced by the NWO puppet Djindic. Thankfully Dindjic met the end he deserved, but there are plenty of creatures of his ilk to take his place. This Serbian Jew is a case in point.

One of the ironies is that of all the Balkans nations, Serbs have been the most "tolerant" for Jews, which makes the treatment of Serbia by the neos and International Jewry all the more despicable. If any good has come from the US bombing campaign against the Serbs, it is that some Serb nationalists have come to appreciate that the Jews are not their friends and will gladly bite the hand that feeds them when it's no longer needed (just as "pro-German" Jews turned on a dime when the Brits offered them Palestine during WWI via the Balfour Declaration).

There is nothing "left-wing" about this kike.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3806659.stm

The 46-year old psychologist has pledged to follow in his predecessor's footsteps in charting a democratic, pro-European, free-market course for Serbia.

[..]

A lifelong political activist, he was convicted for his opposition activities while studying psychology in Belgrade under Communist rule.



All Jews outside Western Europe/US (e.g. the Developing world) are oligarchs and support right-wing free-market "reforms" with the support of Washington. Good examples are the anti-Chavez Jews of Venezuela (an evershrinking minority that is slowly fleeing away to Miami), the business oriented anti-Lula Jews of Brazil, the right-wing property-owning business tycoon oligarchs of Russia and former FSU, the Jews of South Africa (classified as part of the "whites"), and so on. Jews are only associated with the Left in wealthy nations, most remarkably in the US.

There is nothing "left-wing" about this kike.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3806659.stm



All Jews outside Western Europe/US (e.g. the Developing world) are oligarchs and support right-wing free-market "reforms" with the support of Washington. Good examples are the anti-Chavez Jews of Venezuela (an evershrinking minority that is slowly fleeing away to Miami), the business oriented anti-Lula Jews of Brazil, the right-wing property-owning business tycoon oligarchs of Russia and former FSU, the Jews of South Africa (classified as part of the "whites"), and so on. Jews are only associated with the Left in wealthy nations, most remarkably in the US.

I do not consider plutocratic internationalism to be "right wing" by any stretch of the imagination. It is only the facile equating of America's GOP with "conservatism" that has created the false link in people's minds between laissez-faire globalism and "the right."

I define "Left" and "Right" as radicalism/subversion vs. traditionalism. The plutocratic internationalism, where the nation-state is a thing of the past and all power resides in the hands of the transnational investor classes, is in many ways more destructive of traditional institutions than was Communism. In this regard, the neocons (and the "pro-Capitalist" Jew who now rules Serbia) are in many ways further to the Left than even their Communist predecessors. In contrast, many movements which call themselves "socialist" are actually nationalist movements with little interest in the deracination associated with global socialist revolution. As such, they are far more "conservative" than the various pro-capitalist movements and parties in those nations.

To see that this is the case, one need only look to which movements and organizations attract Jewish support. It's the Wall Street of Michael Milken, not the socialist parties of Lula and the Zappatistas, that is Jewish and internationalist in character.

I do not consider plutocratic internationalism to be "right wing" by any stretch of the imagination. It is only the facile equating of America's GOP with "conservatism" that has created the false link in people's minds between laissez-faire globalism and "the right."

I define "Left" and "Right" as radicalism/subversion vs. traditionalism. The plutocratic internationalism, where the nation-state is a thing of the past and all power resides in the hands of the transnational investor classes, is in many ways more destructive of traditional institutions than was Communism. In this regard, the neocons (and the "pro-Capitalist" Jew who now rules Serbia) are in many ways further to the Left than even their Communist predecessors. In contrast, many movements which call themselves "socialist" are actually nationalist movements with little interest in the deracination associated with global socialist revolution. As such, they are far more "conservative" than the various pro-capitalist movements and parties in those nations.

To see that this is the case, one need only look to which movements and organizations attract Jewish support. It's the Wall Street of Michael Milken, not the socialist parties of Lula and the Zappatistas, that is Jewish and internationalist in character.

Well, your contentions depend completely on the way you define the "right" and the "left". I would say your definition is certainly adequete, but I believe does not take into account much of the economic sense.

I view the spectrum of left and right as contingent on economics solely, and thus I am always a leftist. I view the far right as laissez-faire free market capitalism, and the far left as state socialism or syndicalism with few if any property rights. Being a leftist, I support nationalist/liberation left movements in Latin America which do not fit your definition of left, but fit mine, namely because of their opposition to US globalism and free trade in the hemisphere.

I view the spectrum of left and right as contingent on economics solely, and thus I am always a leftist. I view the far right as laissez-faire free market capitalism, and the far left as state socialism or syndicalism with few if any property rights. Being a leftist, I support nationalist/liberation left movements in Latin America which do not fit your definition of left, but fit mine, namely because of their opposition to US globalism and free trade in the hemisphere.

So where do National Socialism and Fascism fit in your classification? They had centralized economies, which leads many libertarians and neos to lable them "left wing," but they centralized their economies and consolidated state power to achieve conservative rather than radical ends.

My definition of traditional (Right) vs. radical (Left) is not an esoteric one at all. It is the dictionary definition of right and left, conservative vs. liberal. If anything, attaching the label "right wing" and "conservative" to globalist plutocracy is supremely inaccurate, because free trade and "global market" ideology were behind the radical ideologies of the Classical Liberals.

I dislike the use of the term "right wing" to describe internationalists like Tadic or the neocons, because it draws attention away from the fact that these advocates of "free markets" are the subversive radicals while their "socialist" opponents are the traditionalists and patriots.

So where do National Socialism and Fascism fit in your classification? They had centralized economies, which leads many libertarians and neos to lable them "left wing," but they centralized their economies and consolidated state power to achieve conservative rather than radical ends.
I view them to be moderate left, though not as far left as the USSR under Stalin.

My definition of traditional (Right) vs. radical (Left) is not an esoteric one at all. It is the dictionary definition of right and left, conservative vs. liberal. If anything, attaching the label "right wing" and "conservative" to globalist plutocracy is supremely inaccurate, because free trade and "global market" ideology were behind the radical ideologies of the Classical Liberals.
Those terms have changed quite a bit throughout history. Classical liberalism isn't used as a common term in the west, where "liberalism" means more state intervention in the economy, although in the FSU and Yugoslavia the term "liberal" usually means pro-capitalist reformer because these reformers meet the contemporary definition of liberalism in the sense that they oppose conservative social policies that the economically-left nationalists support.

I dislike the use of the term "right wing" to describe internationalists like Tadic or the neocons, because it draws attention away from the fact that these advocates of "free markets" are the subversive radicals while their "socialist" opponents are the traditionalists and patriots.
Well in the US, right now mainstream conservative "right-wing" ideologues are mostly neoconservative with regard to expanding free markets through military belligerence. Pat Buchanan is an exception of a right-winger with dignity who does not tolerate such neocon policies.